Great!
Again, not high priority. Really.
mav
On May 18, 2012, at 12:18 PM, Ian Jacobs wrote:
> Hi Mark,
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I recall adding a bunch of anchors to the CG process:
> http://www.w3.org/community/about/
>
> I'll take your advice and go add some for the cg legal agreements.
>
> Ian
>
> On 17 May 2012, at 4:05 PM, Vickers, Mark wrote:
>
>> In discussions with W3C legal staff and member legal staff about W3C agreements, a nice feature of some W3C agreements is that we can pass a link to a specific section of those agreements, e.g.
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-resign
>>
>> However, the availability of internal links in W3C agreements seems to be very inconsistent, in three categories:
>>
>> 1.. Visible links: The best agreements have a Table of Contents and clickable links in sections:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Patent-Policy-20040205/#sec-exclusion-resign
>>
>> 2. Hidden links: Other agreements have no visible links, but the underlying document has id attributes which can be used for linking, but only by the technically savvy:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/2009/12/Member-Agreement#terms
>>
>> 3. No links: Some agreements have no internal links at all:
>>
>> http://www.w3.org/community/about/agreements/cla/
>>
>> It's disappointing that the more recent agreement for CGs is the least linkable!
>>
>> It would be great if all W3C agreements were republished consistently, with visible links to each numbered section.
>>
>> Note that this is not the highest-priority request.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> mav
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Ian Jacobs (ij@w3.org) http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/
> Tel: +1 718 260 9447
>